As promised, The Wedgefield Examiner has prepared answers to the three questions, as promised in the previous notice. They are prepared to the best of my ability, are opinion based on attendance at meetings, review of history and documents, etc. Most supporting documentation is available on The Wedgefield Examiner, or The Wedgefield Times, and should be available for your review at the WPA office, if you request it, and the board will allow you to see it, under what ever law they are using on the date you request it. As always, verify for yourself. Questions will be printed in BLACK. Responses will be provided in RED.
1) Was there a conflict of interest in the board's vote to settle the suit regarding a resident's non payment of the $5,000 canal dredging assessment?
Yes, there was a conflict of interest involving this entire board. The two most culpable are President Walton, and Legal Chair, Garrison. The WPA President has the authority to appoint committee chairs. He appointed Garrison, a board member who in person, and on paper, was attached with a group that financed, and brought legal suit against the legal board who openly, with legal advice, voted to assess under Individual Assessment, to dredge the canals. Your current board, voted under the recommendation of Legal Chair Garrison, to admit another resident to the Legal Committee, who had co-authored a letter with Garrison, shortly after the canal assessment, advising canal and non canal residents, to place those assessments in escrow in Anderson Bank, in avoidance of a vote of a legal board.
We'll pause for a moment and seek definition of conflict of interest. I sought a legal definition. "A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person's self interest and professional interest, or public interest."
The Individual Assessment used for canal owners only, came right out of our by-laws. There was a time in the 10 years that I have lived here that our by-laws and covenants were our guiding legal documents. That is not the case anymore. The Concerned Citizens, with Garrison front, and center on stage, introduced the use of state law to over ride our governing documents and do what they wanted to do, when they removed a WPA president and vice president. Consider the fact, that at will, depending what the Legal Committee wants to defend, they call on our governing documents, then if their will, or want doesn't fit, they throw in state law. At times, when they seek legal opinion, they put state law in the mix, and other times, not. It all depends on their agenda.
Consider the fact that often, our Legal Chair, has refused to get legal opinions in writing. Your board and you, as members, have to take his word, and interpretation, of what the legal opinion was. Consider the fact that the Legal Chair takes to the attorney, what they want accomplished. Consider the fact, that if you attended board meetings, etc., there has been a lot of secrecy, fail to update, fail to answer certain board member questions, regarding this particular case, and others. Consider the fact that if you are a questioning board member, your board meeting packet, sometimes does not contain all the information that non questioning board member folder does. Consider the fact that for most of us, if you feel you are doing the right thing, you will answer clearly and with assurance, as to what you have done. I've witnessed twice, our Legal Chair, skirt the question as to whether he has personally funded the Concerned Citizens in their activities, particularly this question, regarding contributions to their cause, which is also related to the resident who wouldn't pay their assessment, as directed by a letter from our Legal Chair, and one of his recommended committee members. It all looks bad. It does look like conflict of interest.
Finally, remember there was a time when President Walton was about to be removed by the board, a majority Concerned Citizens and their agenda, and the then (prior to Garrison) Legal Chair, said, "it was all about legal." They removed Walton as President, and then shortly changed board attorneys, because a group of residents wanted to remove the new board chair and Concerned Citizens on the board, under state law. When the Concerned Citizen lawyer agreed in writing that the residents should be able to proceed to a recall meeting, the former Legal Chair and new president, went to a new attorney, whose opinion differed from their hand selected attorney's. Garrison, a board member said we wouldn't be paying for that second opinion. In the end, we as members paid for the second opinion, and for the new attorney's meeting with Mrs. Z., one of the Concerned Citizens, who had brought the canal lawsuit, to tell the new attorney what was happening in Wedgefield, in the world according to her. With all that said, the former Legal Chair was right. It is "all about legal", and the prejudice the Legal Chair brings to the lawyers table about what their view of what the board wants is. It just confirms that there is a conflict of interest here, and that we may all pay for it out of our assessment dollars, big time, in refunds.
Why would a president, and most of the board allow it? What could it cost us? We'll discuss that in questions two and three.
